On Wednesday, 10 House Republicans released a joint statement declaring their intention to ban earmarks because they represent "a broken Washington." Yet, according to the group Media Matters, 8 of these 10 Republicans have requested nearly $245 million in earmarks since 2008.

Click here and scroll to the bottom to read the list of GOP lawmakers and the amounts of their earmarks.

Although we're pleased to hear these GOP members of Congress commit themselves to earmark reform, it's clear that they have been a part of the problem. It sure would have been nice to see both parties confront the earmark problem before. But better late than never.

Mark Critz, a former staffer to the late Rep. John Murtha (D-PA), has asked an ethics panel to release transcripts of interviews conducted with him when the panel was probing earmarks by Murtha.

Critz's request of the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) follows concerns raised by a political rival about Critz's role in those earmarks. The rival, former state Treasurer Barbara Hafer, has since dropped out of the race to fill the House seat that Murtha's death left vacant.

According to Roll Call:

The OCE report, which concluded that Murtha did not take campaign donations into account when providing earmarks for PMA clients, included summaries of interviews with Murtha and several staff members, but Critz’s interview was not included.

Critz’s request is apparently the first of its kind for the Office of Congressional Ethics, which was established in March 2008, and it is not clear whether the subject of an OCE investigation can request the release of documents.

On Tuesday, Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA) submitted H. Res. 1147, a resolution that would amend the Rules of the House of Representatives to require members to hold public meetings -- after advance public notice -- to explain earmark requests they intend to submit and to provide a forum for constituent participation.

Rep. Speier’s proposal would advance government accountability by breaking the link between earmarks and campaign contributions, a link forged by the secrecy that typically accompanies earmarks.

CREW applauds Rep. Speier’s efforts to bring transparency to Congress, acting on the well proven adage that sunlight truly is the best disinfectant.

In response to news today that the House Democratic Caucus has decided to ban earmarks, CREW Executive Director Melanie Sloan issued this statement:

“CREW applauds House Democrats for finally recognizing that the American public is tired of watching members of Congress trade earmarks for campaign contributions. This is a terrific first step in breaking the link between campaign dollars and legislation.

“It is ironic, of course, that this action follows so close on the heels of the House Ethics Committee’s PMA report, which found no link between contributions and earmarks, but then again no one really believed that anyway.”

According to the Washington Post, Democratic leaders announced the earmark ban at a meeting of the party's caucus. The Post reports that the new rule "forbids private contractors from receiving earmarks."

Rep. David Obey (D-WI), who chairs the House Appropriations Committee, has estimated that the 2010 federal budget for this fiscal year included more than 1,000 earmarks to private companies. Most of these earmarks were part of the Pentagon's annual budget.

Yet another member of Congress has been caught in a very suspicious relationship with a business or entity that has benefited from the member's congressional earmark. According to Roll Call:

Rep. Solomon Ortiz (D-Texas) has accepted tens of thousands of dollars’ worth of trips to China from a development corporation in his hometown that he aided by securing earmarks and other federal assistance worth millions of dollars.

Ortiz has also traveled on at least one of these trips with his former chief of staff, Lencho Rendon, who was working for Ortiz when he secured a $5 million earmark for the Robstown Improvement Development Corp. The corporation has now hired Rendon as a consultant.

Ideally, projects would compete for federal funding based on the ability of backers to demonstrate that their projects have genuine need and value. Earmarks undermine this by allowing powerful members of Congress to fast-track projects that would benefit their district or state. In these tough times, is Congress continuing to earmark as it has in years past?

A new report answers that question by offering good news and bad news. The good news is that congressional earmarks in this fiscal year have dropped 9% from the previous fiscal year.

The bad news? Make no mistake about it: earmarking is alive and well in Washington. A total of 9,413 earmarks were included in the 2010 fiscal year budget.

President Obama has urged Congress to improve transparency by posting all earmark requests on an easy-to-search website. It's a nice idea, but it remains to be seen if this idea goes anywhere.

CREW has played a key role in exposing earmark abuse in Congress and speaking out about it. But earmarks are also being used by other elected officials at the state and local level.

In this recent blog post, I cited a New York Times' editorial calling for an end to "slush funds" that city and state officials are using to further their political agendas, not the public's agenda. In Washington, D.C., investigators say that ex-Mayor Marion Barry -- now a councilman -- used an earmark in ways that violated conflict-of-interest laws.

Melanie Sloan, CREW's executive director, was interviewed by a Washington TV station, and she urged city officials to reform the current earmark process:

"Clearly, this is a situation ripe for abuse and it is a big problem if the City Council can give out city money -- and it's not just city money, that's our tax dollars we're talking about -- that can go to any friend of any council member just because they want it to without any city service coming for it in return."

Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) is widely known as Congress' king of earmarks, and he often justifies them as his way of creating jobs. However, in this recent article, the Washington Post points out that most of the projects created through Rep. Murtha's earmarks fall short of the job-creation promises that were made:

Of 16 local companies the congressman has helped win federal earmarks, 10 have generated far fewer jobs than forecast, and half of those already have closed operations in his district. Murtha's strategy yielded some successes too. Four firms have expanded dramatically with the aid of earmarks, notably Concurrent Technologies Corp., which after more than a dozen years of earmarks has grown to employ 800 in Johnstown and now wins competitively bid contracts.

The Post analysis illustrates the fleeting success of some of the companies backed by earmarks. Some of the jobs generated by Murtha's earmarks cost about $2 million each, and scores disappeared as soon as projects were completed.

So, even if you set aside the ethical issues involved in the process of earmarking, the Murtha earmarks have not created the number of jobs that had been predicted -- and many of those jobs didn't last long.

Members of the Massachusetts congressional delegation sure know how to deliver on earmarks -- for contributors. And, the revolving door between Capitol Hill and K Street aided those efforts.

Campaign contributors who gave a total of $823,000 to members of the congressional subcommittee drafting the defense bill will receive earmarks worth $461 million for their firms. Several of those earmarks were delivered by the Massachusetts House delegation, and in today’s Boston Globe, reporter Bryan Bender writes:

In Massachusetts, nearly 40 percent of the defense earmarks are slated to go to companies whose top executives contributed to the sponsor’s campaigns, hired former lawmakers or congressional aides to lobby on their behalf, or both.

Just a few months ago, Bender cited an earmark that Senator John Kerry inserted into a military spending bill.  That earmark apparently had nothing to do with defense needs – it sought to fund an educational institute.

Looks like the classic mix of earmarks, campaign contributions and the revolving door on Capitol Hill.

Just because seven House members who sit on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee are facing an ethics investigation doesn't mean they've change the way they do business. This blurb from "Under the Influence" says much about how little Members of Congress are fazed by the ethics process:

"The disclosure that seven House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee members are being scrutinized for their ties to PMA Group, a now-defunct lobbying firm that raised money for lawmakers and won earmarks for clients, is not expected to have a chilling effect on negotiations to reach agreement on a final FY10 Defense spending bill," CongressDaily AM (subscription) reports. "According to analysts for watchdog groups that monitor the appropriations process, House-Senate discussions are probably too far along for negotiators to start weeding out earmarks."